Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gordonjames62 t1_j6hym6e wrote

I want to take another approach here.

There are some changes we can make to geography that are cost effective.

Forestry and agriculture changes can make effective changes to microclimate.

If we plant trees alongside a river in an area that was formerly cropland along the river, we MAY reduce evaporation of the river water by giving it shade.

If we plant crops known for stabalizing soil, we may be able to reduce desertification in some instances.

The trick is to tailor your solution to fit your problem.

I live in an area where dykes were build to change tidal floodplains into agricultural areas. I'm sure it changed the microclimate over the last 300 years.

  • The number of places where this can be helpful is low.

  • Many places people want to change climate there is no cost effective solution.

  • So many unintended consequences when you are changing places that have developed over thousands of years regarding ecology and plant and animal species. Do you really want to cause species to go extinct?

  • cost effectiveness. - there are less expensive ways to approace the problem.

2

Coconspiritors OP t1_j6i67g7 wrote

Thank you. What are the fields of study that investigate these geographical solutions?

1

gordonjames62 t1_j6idhn9 wrote

This from world economic forum in 2019 - Here’s how we can use agriculture to fight climate change suggests a starting place for reading.

Another large scale kind of project we have data for is when we have made things like dams for power or flood control. The lakes created have big effects on climate.

This resource - takes the position that hydro dams are to be avoided (which I disagree with) but also raises questions that every project should consider. Someone at National Geographic also has the opinion that dams are bad but again it seems to me that dams give us another lever to adjust to reduce problems like flooding / agricultural water use / drought.

2